We are excited to announce that Arch Linux is entering into a direct collaboration with Valve. Valve is generously providing backing for two critical projects that will have a huge impact on our distribution: a build service infrastructure and a secure signing enclave. By supporting work on a freelance basis for these topics, Valve enables us to work on them without being limited solely by the free time of our volunteers.

This opportunity allows us to address some of the biggest outstanding challenges we have been facing for a while. The collaboration will speed-up the progress that would otherwise take much longer for us to achieve, and will ultimately unblock us from finally pursuing some of our planned endeavors. We are incredibly grateful for Valve to make this possible and for their explicit commitment to help and support Arch Linux.

These projects will follow our usual development and consensus-building workflows. [RFCs] will be created for any wide-ranging changes. Discussions on this mailing list as well as issue, milestone and epic planning in our GitLab will provide transparency and insight into the work. We believe this collaboration will greatly benefit Arch Linux, and are looking forward to share further development on this mailing list as work progresses.

  • masterspace@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    You’re just not getting it. That hypothetical money isn’t going anywhere but the pockets of the people a level above the actual developers.

    Literally just objectively false.

    If I self publish my game on steam, I get every dollar from it except for the ones that valve takes.

    Are the developers a studio owned by a large publisher like Microsoft? Microsoft is funding the entire project and studio operating costs, and all the revenue is going back to them. They set the budget, and anything above the projected sales figures a nice bonus for Microsoft execs and shareholders.

    Yeah bro, some developers are not owned by Microsoft, what’s a twist!

    Your premise of lowering platform fees leading to better games is only ever going to happen for early-access indie games where the devs quit their day job. Those devs are a tiny minority of gross PC game sales, and while it would be nice for them to be paid a bit more, it’s not going to change anything for the average Joe Gamer consumer.

    No dumbass, it’s just fundamentally more efficient. Your premise of giving Gabe Newell 15% of every game sale and then deep throating him while you thank him for the opportunity, for literally no benefit or reason, is just asinine.

    My point still stands: you’re proposing something that doesn’t actually benefit the typical consumer, but merely shifts the profit ratio between two profit-driven corporations.

    No. It doesn’t. Your position is that you want to waste 15% of every gaming purchase on enriching Gabe Newell instead of the developers who actually made the game. Congratulations, that makes you a dumbass who likes wasting money on hero worship.

    • pivot_root@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      ,False. Literally just objectively false.

      If I self publish my game on steam, I get every dollar from it except for the ones that valve takes.

      Congratulations, you poked a hole in my argument by agreeing with me that indie devs are the only possible people who would benefit from lower fees! Do you want a medal, or do you want to actually finish reading before trying to pull off a “GOTCHA!” moment?

      Yeah bro, some developers are not owned by Microsoft, what’s a twist!

      The other twist I absolutely, totally, did not expect today was no comment about my paragraph on third-party publishers taking that juicy 15% from devs. Shocking!

      No dumbass, it’s just fundamentally more efficient. Your premise of giving Gabe Newell 15% of every game sale and then deep throating him while you thank him for the opportunity, for literally no benefit or reason, is just asinine.

      Have you never ever heard the phrase “the devil you know is better than the one you don’t”? If my $10 isn’t going back into my own pocket, but into the bank account of one of two corporations, which do you think it will be:

      A private company that doesn’t have a track record of fucking me as a consumer, or a corporation legally obligated to inflate its own share price that sees the consumer as a means to an end?

      Don’t worry, take your time. It’s a tough question.

      No. It doesn’t. Your position is that you want to waste 15% of every gaming purchase on enriching Gabe Newell instead of the developers who actually made the game. Congratulations, that makes you a dumbass.

      I’m going to assume you read my previous comment and are willing to acknowledge that self-published indie devs would be the only demographic of developers who would actually get that 15% instead of the game’s publishers.

      Do you know how many self-published games I purchased through Steam in 2024? Exactly one: Hades 2. And that’s only because my only legal options available were through Steam or Epic Games, and Epic Games is a wannabe monopoly employing anticompetitive practices with an egotistical and hypocritical manchild as its CEO. Everything else indie gets purchased directly or through Itch, then saved to a NAS for permanent ownership.

      But hey, between enriching Valve and enriching some other company whose business model is also to profit off of developers, but does nothing for you as a consumer, go ahead and support the one that has zero incentive to treat you as anything more than a one-time sales figure.


      Sarcasm aside:

      At the end of the day, what I’m trying to explain and that you keep stubbornly refusing to hear, is that: way the way industry is currently, someone other than the developer is going to get that hypothetical 15% when it comes to 99% of total sales revenue.

      It’s better for us as consumers to have that 15% go towards the company which does the modern-day equivalent of “bread and circuses” and hasn’t yet screwed its users. The most likely alternative to giving them the money is giving the money to yet another corporation, but one with zero reason to give a shit about the consumer other than as a way to make the line go up.

      For that 1% of indies and self-published developers, you don’t have to accept that they lose 15% of the sales price. If you care that much (and you should), buy the game directly and give them 96.5% of MSRP. Or, if you can’t, buy it on Itch. Or if that’s not an option and they only sell on Steam, send an email and ask them how to donate an extra $10. Shit, buy the game twice (preferably on another platform) if you must.

      Just don’t expect that reducing Valve’s profits by 15% is going to make life better for everyone and not mostly just investors and executives. In the best realistic case, nothing improves except the bonus that some C-suite gets at the end of the next quarter. In the worst case, Valve chooses to compensate for that lost revenue by cutting down on their FOSS contributions or experimental hardware projects.

      • masterspace@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        At the end of the day, what I’m trying to explain and that you keep stubbornly refusing to hear, is that: way the way industry is currently, someone other than the developer is going to get that hypothetical 15% when it comes to 99% of total sales revenue.

        BECAUSE THATS HORESHIT.

        Jesus fucking christ. It’s literally objectively false. You are just saying that to blindly defend Valve because gamers dick ride Valve like dumbass fucking lemmings.

        A game developer has a revenue sharing deal with their publisher meaning that the publisher will get X% of whatever their revenue is. If their revenue is lower because Valve takes more, then they both get less. If their revenue is higher because Valve takes less, then they both get more.

        It’s not fucking rocket science. Stop making up hand wavy bullshit like the money will just dissappear into the ether so let’s keep making Gabe Newel richer.

        • Aatube@kbin.melroy.orgOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Thing is, I hardly see indie devs without footing eat up the $100 Direct fee and publish on steam (unless they’re making low-quality porn). Most of the indie games I’ve purchased garnered a following on Itch first.

        • pivot_root@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Ever heard of royalties? You know, that type of agreement where the creator earns X% of gross sales.

          Or considered that publishing agreements can be made to include publishing costs (aka platform fees) as part of the publisher’s fixed cut? I’ll let you in on an obvious secret: if Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo all take 30%, the publisher is going to use 30% as the deduction for platform fees regardless of where the sale comes from.

          I stand by my opinion that the most likely outcome of lowering platform fees on Steam is the publisher finding a way to vacuum an extra 15% into their own bank account.

          That being said: Please tell me what drugs you’re on, because I would love to also live in kumbaya la-la land where unchecked late-stage capitalism isn’t a problem and corporations don’t exist to enrich the 1% by infinitely increasing growth through screwing everyone below them.